I guess the americans arent all that happy with the Shia south not supporting them eh?
Q. Why the US is begging for UN backing in Iraq ?
A. Because its ass is on the line.
Read all about it.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FB05Ak02.html
Funny,
A bomb goes off and kills 100 Kurds, and not a single post! A bomb attack on a religious leader, and no one understands that the Sunni's minority who have been killing for 35 years will not stop until they are back in control. Maybe we just arm the Kurds and arm the Shia and sit back and watch them clean out the Baathists for us.
Perhaps mr Sistani will realize that the same bombs that almost got him will be killing iraqi's all over the country as they stand in line for his elections.
Dont detract from the subject Ohioguy. This is about Sistani who is a thorn in the side of the US. What is better for the US to remove him and have some one who agrees with the illegal establishment of a US government in Iraq?
You really do buy that American propoganda dont you? If they Sunnis were so evil, why didnt the Iraqis Shia wipe them all out? They didnt. Because it aint the Sunnis. It aint the Shias. Btw the Kurds are also sunni or shia so how do you define them?
The Kurds are as much muslim as these sunni and shias you mention or did all the kurds suddenly becoe aethests?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
The Kurds are as much muslim as these sunni and shias you mention or did all the kurds suddenly becoe aethests?
[/QUOTE]
It are the people of Iraq who isolate themselves into separate groups that fight each other, not Ohioguy or American propaganda.
Bull**** Sem. The Iraqis did not come up with the phrases, Sunni Triangle. Or the Shia South. Or the Kurdish north. You the americans came up with that to divide and conquer. Sadly it aint working.
CM,
At this point Sistani is a politician with good instincts. If he can organize elections quickly while the Sunni areas are hot with resistance, then the Shia's will win an overwhelming majority, with very little effective representation from the Sunni's.
Now that sounds good to Sistani, but it will make an already alienated Sunni population feel even more alienated. Civil war would soon erupt. Think about it, and don't be so naive as to beleive that sistani does not have his own personal agenda which may or may not be the best thing for a deeply divided country.
The current administration's attempt to bypass elections & appoint people of their own choice shows they didn't come to Iraq to 'endure freedom' .. they came to establish an friendly government. Freedom & democracy was a lip service.
Shias are in majority, and they will stay that way for the near future. You have election 3-4 months from now or 3-4 years, the results will be the same. Shias will have a mijority and people will elect whoever is more anti-American regardless of how bad they maybe for Iraq.
And i wont be naive enough to believe that the Americans have the best interest of the Iraqis at heart. They dont. After all these fake reports its hard to believe anybody in the US admin has even heard of morals or ethics.
Now Sistani wants elections. I say go for it. After all the US the worlds greatest democracy should help spread the true way of government shouldnt it? Or is democracy not good enough for us "rag heads"?
You are just assuming stuff again. The resistance is from all fronts. Anyway i say let the iraqi people decide what is best of them. Not you or I or the US administration.
But the US would be much happier with a dead Sistani no?
US won't be happier with a dead sustani, instead it will cause more trouble. A leader who is accepted can be molded your way, but no leader means chaos, which is not good in an already chaotic place.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
US won't be happier with a dead sustani, instead it will cause more trouble. A leader who is accepted can be molded your way, but no leader means chaos, which is not good in an already chaotic place.
[/QUOTE]
No leader means chaos, which in turn means you can help prop up a group who will follow you.
CM, it's not as easy as you make it sound. And US already has a group trained for that, it's called the Iraq governing council.
That is a defunct council with no backing on the ground. Plus messing with the masses is easier than it appears. Just look at Bush and Blairs WMD issue. You assassinate a popular leader. You get a corrupt leader with some power to come forth and take up the mantle.
Edit: Plus what will the US lose? It will gain with his death. Chaos only further increases the reasons for US troops to be there.
It's far more likely that it was Mohammed's Army or Army of Mohammed (or whatever the heck those former Baathist terrorists are calling themselves) that tried to knock off Sistani. A relatively moderate
Sistani keeping the Shias more or less under control is a far better alternative for the US than a dead Sistani and the uproar that would follow.
Who was it that knocked off that other popular cleric in Najaf a while back?
I dont know myvoice. After what Bush and Blair pulled who is gonna believe what the US Administration says?
The US has more to lose if Sistani stays alive. An uproar wouldnt aid Mohammad's Army. It could easily turn on them and lead to in fighting in Iraq. It doesnt benefit them at all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
The US has more to lose if Sistani stays alive. An uproar wouldnt aid Mohammad's Army. It could easily turn on them and lead to in fighting in Iraq. It doesnt benefit them at all.
[/QUOTE]
Since when did what "benefits them at all" become the mantra that Iraqis, Arabs or Shia/Sunni relations rally behind? As far as ayatollahs go, Sistani is as as moderate a leader the US could hope for. At least his demands for democracy don't resembe the sham they have in Iran. Sistani is playing politics well by maneurvering to make him and his the dominant political force in Iraq. An uproar from his death would bring more instability to Iraq which would not benefit Iraqis or the US. Unfortunately the entrenched violence and rivarly between different groups is Iraq (which you want to minimize as US propaganda) has the potential to blow up if stablity cannot come to Iraq.
So much confusion…
Supporters of the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shia Muslims, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have denied reports that he has been the target of an attack.
One of his aides dismissed the reports as untrue. One report had said gunmen opened fire as he greeted people in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday morning. Ayatollah Sistani has recently criticised US plans to transfer power to an unelected authority in Iraq, and called for direct elections. The reports came a day before the expected arrival of a United Nations mission in Iraq aimed at resolving the issue. Ayatollah Sistani has rejected the US plan - agreed with the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (ICG) - that allows for the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional government in June. This government is supposed to draft a provisional constitution. A Sunni IGC member had denounced the reported attack on the spiritual leader. “This horrible act aims only to divide the Iraqi people but it will fail,” said Naseer al-Chaderchi.
I am surprised some jackass has not shown up with some conspiracy theory that Sistani staged this attack on himself to get some attention or to show how important he is etc etc.
I do recall some political geniuses saying that after Musharraf was attcked..dunno where they are now :)
Well, let's not go much further without examining all of the available conspiracies.
Who says that the attack was the Sunni's? This could well be the Sadirist's and it is an intra-Shia fight. Sadr was not happy that Sistani's organization was closing down offices in an attempt to cinch power over the Shia's.
Once again, Sistani is a power broker in the brutal politics of Iraq. While he is a moderate, let's not assume that he is not a skilled infighter. Anyone who could survive that many years under Saddam without going into exile knows how to protect his own interests.
OG if he was pro US, the conspiracy theorists would use the same thing u said..i.e. he was able to stay in iraq and not have to be in exile as a proof that he was in cahoots with saddam, but just had secret shadowy dealing with him :)
know what i mean?